Counter-Currents
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 629
Joel Davis & the NS Question
Counter-Currents Radio
183 words / 2:37:28
Greg Johnson and Joel Davis discussed the necessity and relevance of National Socialism in the current year. It is now available to download or listen to online.
Topics include:
2:30 – The origin of the debate between Joel and Keith Woods.
3:55 – Is 1930s National Socialism coherent with white nationalism today?
12:29 – Europe has effectively been under American rule, with disastrous consequences.
20:40 – The case for nationalism shouldn’t stand or fall because of WWII.
32:52 – The relevant aspects of National Socialism.
40:18 – Nationalism for me, but not for thee.
49:39 – National sovereignty and the moral equality of nation-states.
1:00:30 – German romanticism vs Anglo universalism
1:03:37 – Should nations get along, or should nations fear one another?
1:22:55 – Will Europe ever become a single, unified bloc without one country dominating it?
1:32:25 – Joel does not respect universal rights.
1:39:53 – The liberal order is not a bizarre accident. It is purposefully destroying European nations.
1:48:18 – National Socialists were defeated. Are there any lessons there?
2:01:05 – We won’t get people on our side if we play the Nazi caricature.
2:21:22 – Questions from the audience.
2:33:48 – Farewells.
To listen in a player, click here or below. To download, right-click the link and click “save as.”
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
32 comments
What was to be a discussion on the necessity or not of rehabilitating national socialism ended up being Greg trying to rehabilitate international liberalism 😆
Great podcast guys
This was one of the best debates I’ve heard on CC. Great points from both sides.
Excellent podcast. Joel Davis argued at a very high and sustained level. That said, I think he and his Aussie comrades have terrible optics reminiscent of ISIS.
They would never be capable of ISIS levels of depravity. They’re White.
Overall an excellent and thought-provoking discussion. It seemed there was a clash of styles as well as ideas, but both sides made some good points and I think there was actually more agreement than was apparent from the somewhat belligerent argument, with only a few points of irreconcilable differences. It seems clear that Greg’s recent essay, The Cloud, was distilled from this talk. I’ll link it here for any latecomers:
https://counter-currents.com/2025/03/the-cloud/
I like this style of debate where each side makes very strong, rational arguments and both sides argue in good faith. Unlike just about any other debate I’ve listened to in the past 10 years.
Concur. It fills me with such hope and happiness when I hear a revealing debate in which both sides argue in good faith. White people love the truth and we want to discover it, even if it is ugly or difficult, and we use our disagreements towards that end.
Are there other races who are capable of this kind of debate? Most obviously cannot. Can asians argue in good faith? Persians?
This was a great discussion! The continuance of white civilization itself changes the debate from one about individual self interest (as in the Socratic dialogues) to collective survival. It’s hard to make the gestalt switch from some form of moral objectivism to particularism, given that relativism in every form has been self-refuting. How would one advocate particularism? As a doctrine only for me, or for others as well?
Joel Davis is very articulate in stating the case for nationalism. He and his people are out in the streets with activism. Be interesting to see him do some writing for C-C or Substack and collect them into a book of essays.
I believe that they’re doing good work and are led by smart and principled men, but calling themselves “Hitler soldiers” seems needlessly provocative. It’s more likely to close somebody’s ears before they can even hear the argument – even the ears of people who would otherwise be open to national socialism. It seems self-marginalizing, but I won’t say they should stop. I wish them luck and success, and it may well be true that there is an audience that prefers their approach.
By the way, Joel has a Substack page at https://joeldavis.substack.com/
There are about 800 cities with over 50000 inhabitants in EU. The Russians have about 5580 nuclear warheads, among which 1600 are fully operational. Europe has about 500 nuclear warheads in total, unable to defend itself properly. In principle, if a bunch of Russian oligarchs and their FSB-GRU and political friends have a big party with a lot of Vodka and slip on the red buttons in their drunken stupor, 450 million Europeans would face immediate existential challenges, and there is nothing they can do. This is a direct consequence of WW2, in which more than 50 million white lifes were lost including civilians. After the war, Europe was infiltrated massively by pacifists and neo-Marxists, sponsored by both the Russians and the Americans, with the assistance of their imperial administrators, the Jews. Europe was disarmed , while countries in which half of their populations live in stoneage (like India and Pakistan) or communist dictatorships (like China and North Korea) were allowed and even encouraged to build their nuclear stockpiles.
The Ukrainian-Russian war woke up the Europeans to reality from their long neo-Marxist pacifist sleep. If they fail to do that now (to rearm), there will be no second chances. The next non-white empire that will challenge Europe in the future will not spare them.
This current state of affairs in the world is a direct consequence of WW2.
In my humble opinion NS , the German variety of the 20-th century, made a lot of noise, stirred a lot of souls, but had catastrophic consequences for the white race. It has to be discarded.
We cannot be held hostage to history, either by our enemies or by others in our movement. Just as slavery was a feature, not a bug, of the Confederate States of America (CSA), so was imperialist expansionism, aggressive war, criminal conquest, and enslavement of fellow White nations an organic feature, not a bug, of German National Socialism. We do not need to buy the cow to get the milk; better yet, today’s ethnonationalists can “cut up the cow for parts.” Today’s white nationalists should view Adolf Hitler and German National Socialism dispassionately as a historical and political in figure and ideology of major importance worthy of study in his, and its, own right. None of the arguments that Joel Davis made in your recent debate require enthusiastically embracing or rehabilitating Adolf Hitler; instead, NS ideology can be “cannibalized” for the parts that are good and work (and there are many) and the rest can be simply regarded as a feature of the “bad old nationalism;” nationalism has nothing to gain by rehabilitating or promoting the Confederacy or the NSDAP as wholes and embracing the elements that work without proper clarification, nuance, and contextualization needlessly makes nationalists’ job that much harder. Military forces cannot and should not be morally, ethically, or legally employed except in a defensive or retaliatory capacity. States MUST adhere to just war doctrine.
>> so was imperialist expansionism, aggressive war, criminal conquest, and enslavement of fellow White nations an organic feature, not a bug, of German National Socialism. <<
Not even remotely true.
The Allies were prepared to do literally anything to prevent Germany from escaping its encirclement. That is why they issued Poland the blank check guarantee, even after everybody had already agreed that Danzig was German.
Soon the Kriegsherr had done what von Schlieffen and the Kaiser could not do, and was touring Paris with his architect and his sculptor in tow (LINK). It was not what Hitler wanted, but Germany’s enemies would not accept peace under any circumstances.
If the Germans hadn’t fought, the whole continent would have likely ended up Soviet. And many (((traitors))) in the West were prepared to make nuclear weapons available to Moscow.
As far as the Confederacy goes, if the states had the original right to form a Union in the first place, then they had the right to secede from it.
Before secession, the North had been waging economic warfare against the South with the Tariff. Alexander Hamilton, who outlined the economic theories of sound taxation and currency, would have been appalled.
Secondly, the Founders could never really decide whether they wanted a weak Confederacy of sovereign states, or a Republic where the sovereignty is National (with the Constitution guaranteeing many rights to the provinces, and to the people).
When Federal troops were sent by Mr. Lincoln to subjugate the South, the Whites defended their land. Simple as that.
When my 3rd great-grandfather was rotting away of smallpox and starvation in the Union PoW camp in Illinois, it was small comfort that he was a conscripted Southern landowner without slaves, a blacksmith and gunsmith by trade. He beat Mr. Lincoln to the mass grave by a few weeks.
The City of Alton, Illinois has a nice Confederate cemetery memorial (LINK). Installed in 1909, I doubt with the proliferation of Woke that this would even be possible today.
Many on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line wanted to eliminate the Peculiar Institution ─ which was dying out ─ but anybody who decides to kill 600 million White men (which doesn’t even count the civilians) in a Holy War to pull off Negro manumission a little sooner deserved to be shot.
Plus, the Abolitionist messiahs never addressed what to do with freed Negroes. Most plantation owners could never have afforded to put them on pensions ─ and I don’t believe that Mr. Lincoln, had he lived, would have actually raised the money to ship them to Liberia. The Railsplitter was a political opportunist and a demagogue who also hugely overestimated any threat of the expansion of slavery Westward.
The American dilemma is that the Founding Fathers basically kicked the can down the road hoping that the Negro problem would just go away ─ or become outmoded by events and modern industrial progress (which was happening slowly but relentlessly).
🙂
Seems to me that Counter-Currents has a better handle on the meaning of”nations” than those who should know, i.e. Rev. 17:15, “are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.”
I wish Joel didn’t sound so resentful. It’s hard to listen to.
Joel Davies has perfectly defined and defended his position. He is very articulate and persuasive. He has a potential of eventually becoming a top tier politician of our global cause. He possesses the rare qualities of a true leader. I fully share his devotion to the cause; especially his unwavering determination to go against the prevailing current. It is impossible to be a conqueror if you are not ready to oppose the prevailing views and isn’t ready to challenge a status-quo.
I share Joel’s views 100% what relates to the spiritual and philosophical foundation of our movement and our race.
In the same time it must be noted that Greg Johnson is right as well. He has a more practical approach.
Joel absolutely right when he says that Germans were the greatest nation of the White race. It is not an opinion but an objective undeniable fact. Therefore, Germans had the moral right to put their ethnic interest above everything else. It wasn’t a narrow chauvinism but a necessary social defensive mechanism. If Germans had won WW2, the whole White race would be a winner. Germans had lost WW2 and it meant the defeat of the whole White race. Everything that happens now is the long-term result of this defeat. It is a fact that becomes ever more evident for all.
Joel Davies is absolutely right from the idealistic point of view. But Greg Johnson’s position is more pragmatic and socially acceptable. He is, definitely, the most successful promoter of the White racial cause on the global scale. This fact alone makes him a winner in this discussion. Greg’s position is the only right one if we judge this question from a pure practical political point of view. In order to be more or less acceptable among wider public, we must not trumpet our adherence to the Third Reich and Hitler. It is history and must be studied as history.
For example, in Russia the radical nationalist opposition since about 2011 was compelled by circumstances to ally with liberals. The practical politics require such cooperation. We have the powerful common enemy that suppresses as nationalist, so liberals. Therefore, it is very natural to fight together against this enemy. I had always found a common ground with all kinds of liberals and libertarians. We had a task at hand; there was no need to discuss such distant issues like WW2. In the common struggle against the cannibalistic Putin’s regime I am happy to ally with anyone (even non-white national minorities), if only it helps to dethrone the monster. Everything else is utterly irrelevant at the moment. The similar situation was in Ukraine when Ukrainian nationalists combined their forces with liberals in order to dethrone Yanukovich.
Therefore, on these practical grounds, I fully support Greg Johnson’s approach. But in the same time I like Joel Davies’ idealism very much. I am sure that, after gaining more practical experience, he will accept many of Greg’s ideas.
Wolf, your assessment of the debate is balanced, fair and accurate. Joel is is the type of passionate, young, intelligent, and brave warrior that we need. Greg Johnson is the older politically savvy type who we also need. They both serve respective purposes. I would strongly suggest Wolf, that because of your Russian background you contact Henrik Palmgren at redice.tv and arrange for an appearance on his show. Henrik and his Russian-American wife Lana have a large and growing pro-White audience world-wide, and your perspectives on Russia and Eastern Europe would be both appreciated and an absolute hit with the audience.
Thank you for your appreciation. Yes, both Joel and Greg are right in essentials. Younger people tend to be more idealistic, risky and extreme in their judgements; it is the way Nature works. With time this initial idealistic nuclear bomb must be transformed into a steady-working nuclear reactor. The core ideas must be always kept in their pristine purity but the tactical approaches to their implementation could vary according to the given situation. We can and must engage in politics but without divulging our true allegiances. It is much safer to adopt libertarian rhetoric than to brandish Third Reich flag on the streets (especially, when it is criminalized in many countries). When dealing with an outside auditory we must not take any firm stances in relation to WW2. It is enough to say that “it is a distant history; people who lived through those events are gone; it is time to turn a new page”. The majority of sensible mainstream people would always agree with this approach. But inside our own narrow circles we must clearly state that Hitler was right (at least in comparison with his adversaries) and that allies had destroyed European civilization. Those who don’t want to accept this self-evident truth must go their own way. I don’t think that such scum like Dugin and other Russian “nationalists” of Putinist streak deserve to be taken seriously anywhere. They are not nationalists but a mutated Bolshevik virus.
I know Henrik Palmgren and Lana for about 10 years. I regularly listened their radio programs back then and sometimes watch their videos now. They do a great job. Yes, it is a good idea to cooperate with them.
There are some doubts concerning Mr. Davis. I don’t know whether it’s true or not, and I’m not an Australian to judge. At least, I wouldn’t make rushed conclusions about him.
Thank you for the link. There are substantial accusations against Joel Davies (if true). I am accustomed to deal with such situations. For example, there is an obscure nationalist blogger who produced a lengthy audio where he tries to persuade that Mark Weber is some kind of imposter that for years only harmed the nationalist cause. I don’t know Mark Weber personally, neither the person who accuses him. The only material that I have are the videos and articles that Mark Weber wrote throughout many years. I share the views he advocates. The results of his work are enough to prove his value for our cause. Everything else is of little importance.
It must be noted that absolutely all radical nationalist activists were accused by someone of being “agents” or otherwise vilified. It is a normal part of the work. For example, the widely circulated claim that “Hitler was an illegitimate son of Rothschilds”. It is the usual informational noise of any psychological warfare. KGB were/are especially apt in this work. For example, they can vilify any person on multiple levels. The dirt they produce is directed simultaneously to various target groups. For example, for the nationalists and conservatives it is accentuated that Zelenskii is a Jew and liberal, but for the leftists it is accentuated that he is a Nazi and warmonger. If someone can’t be accused of being gay, he is maligned for being a women-abuser. Anything is used that could stick.
In relation to Joel Davies I can say the following: regardless of who he really is, he is a talented person, possessing of high intellectual and oratorical abilities. These are hard facts. The doubt could be raised only about whether he truly believes in those ideas he expresses or it is only a theatrical performance.
Definitely, we must always be on the alert in relation to anyone. It is a clandestine war where all kinds of surprises could pop-up.
Yes, the fact of being present around prominent Jews is enough to cause some suspicion, but not enough to make any definite judgement.
Back in 2014-16 I had actively participated in the anti-war protests in Russia. There were all kinds of different people: liberals, anarchists, nationalists and even some occasional gays. Some of them were Jews. All of them attended those events for their own reasons. They saw a threat to their group interests from the nascent totalitarian state. There are plenty of photos where I could be seen with those people around. Does it mean that I am a Jewish liberal gay?
When I wrote my commentaries and articles denouncing annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine in 2014 (asserting that, eventually, it would lead to a catastrophe for ethnic Russians themselves), I too was accused by many paranoid Orthodox “nationalists” of being a Jew, gay and “traitor of the Motherland”. By the way, the same orthodox nationalists now are feeling themselves quite comfortably around Chechen Muslim gangsters that kill and rape civilians.
The main point is that it is easy to present anyone in unfavorable light, if needed.
It must be noted that in this article on the site of Australia First Party the ideas are floated that, somehow, Putin’s Russia isn’t too bad after all. This fact alone greatly undermines everything else that is expressed there. If people fail to perceive the pure Bolshevik evil, then, something isn’t quite well with them.
I don’t know anything about this party or the author of the article. Therefore, I don’t take on myself to produce any definite judgements.
Yes, the information provided in the article merits to be taken into consideration. But I would put under suspicion not only Joel Davies but the author of the article as well. Such kind of accusations work both ways. We simply can’t know. The only way to put a final judgement is to analyze the work of any given person throughout many years; to evaluate the net result; whether he was helpful for the cause or harmful. So far, it is impossible to decide.
Oh wow, I didn’t know Erik Striker had an Australian mini-me.
Striker is the mini one, but he’s not a knock-off of Joel. Joel is far more intelligent and sensible than Striker.
Striker is an edgelord. I say this as someone who was once a dedicated Strikerist and faithful “People’s Square” listener.
He is a former communist. Never trust anyone with “zeal of the convert.” Ed Dutton has written about how most extreme and sudden converts from one ideology to another demonstrate extreme mental instability in other ways.
Why would you be a dedicated listener of a supposedly former communist to begin with? Why do you profess on this forum to love non-white people? WTF is wrong with you?
Sorry to have let you down. I’ll be more racist in the future. Thanks
If the cohabitation of multiple races/ethnicities within a state inevitably leads to group conflict and competition over state control, then the same thing will inevitably happen wrt control over global power mechanisms, wealth, resources, etc. The collapse of the white world order in the 20th century shows us that reliance on perpetual international systems for the preservation of our people is unwise. The only way to ensure our people don’t collapse (genetically) in the face of civilizational cycles is to ensure that our genetic interests aren’t reliant on the whims of civilization.
The point of having intergovernmental organizations is to prevent such conflicts.
But yes, as I point out in “The Cloud,” in case these break down, it is good to have backups.
I’ve never heard a National Socialist defend his position so phenomenally. Joel’s argumentation was excellent. Greg asked great questions though. Overall, this was a fantastic discussion.
Comment:
Hello,
I recently tried to access the website “counter-currents.com”
but was met with a message stating that I’ve been blocked due to security reasons.
The message mentioned that the website is using a security service to protect itself from online
attacks and the action I performed may have triggered this block.
I understand the importance of online security and the need
to protect websites from potential threats. However, I was just trying to access the website
for legitimate purposes and was unable to do so.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding or my IP address was flagged by mistake.
I kindly request the site owner or the support team to look
into this matter and help me gain access to the website. I’m more
than willing to provide additional information or follow any necessary steps to resolve this issue.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards.
Spectacular debate!
Mr Davis, I have bookmarked your Rumble page. I’m looking forward to The Persistent Relevance of WW II.
Keep up the debate!
There’s much more to be said.
Eleatic Cavalier
EXCELLENT debate! One of the best back-and-forth exchanges that I’ve heard out of many great conversations on Counter-Currents radio. Both sides were passionate and articulate without hostility or compromise. I am one of those who believes that without changing the narrative that has continued to metastasize around the WW2 Germany-Ultimate-Evil-Hitler-Nazis, White advocacy is defeated at the outset by institutional power. I’m not so sure, even so, that it can be rehabilitated; nor do I think it can simply be “stepped over”. All of which made me very eager to hear this debate.
I do have a somewhat unfavorable opinion of the methodology of true believers in Hitlerism, such as Joel Davis, and I thought his performance on Mark Collett’s stream on this topic was lukewarm. In this debate, however, he won me over! Joel Davis is a very impressive individual and passionately defends his beliefs. Mine align with his more closely than with those of Greg Johnson; but I do find Dr. Johnson to be a more statesman-like figure, who will be indispensable in any realpolitik situation, and also to be the most effective spokesman for winning over the broader segment of White people with moderate viewpoints.
Just a quick note to say I still LOL when I think of Greg saying “I- I gon’ KEILL you…”
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.